Rush Limbaugh Program - March 22, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 22, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:12

March 22, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Shirts are getting too big here.
	I feel like I'm wearing a gunny sack.
	Greetings, my good friends.
	Rich Republicans, right-minded conservatives, those who aspire to both.
	And a special heartfelt welcome to all of you liberals, leftists out there, tuning in for your daily dose.
	of hatred and rage.
	Happy to help provide it for you.
	Rush Lynn Baugh, the EIB network.
	Telephone number 800-282-2882.
	Email address rush at EIBnet.com.
	Washington Post with a warning today in an editorial to the, well, both the White House and the Democrats.
	But I mean, this is a warning.
	It goes primarily to the Congress.
	Political spectal.
	Spectacle is the title here.
	And let me just sum up their editorial.
	There's no evidence that any firing of these eight U.S. attorneys obstructed a corruption investigation.
	There is no evidence.
	There was no crime in firing these people.
	And even the Washington Post now says that there's no evidence that any of these firings obstructed a corruption investigation.
	They also say in the Washington Post editorial that the Bush administration executive privilege concerns are legitimate.
	The solution proposed by the Washington Post is to have Attorney General Gonzalez head up there and testify and have Rove give a briefing.
	Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here.
	Is the president not entitled to confidence and confidential advice on personnel matters?
	And to remember the tables could easily be turned as they were not so many years ago with a Republican Congress eager to rifle through the files of a Democrat administration.
	So the thing the Post, I'm sure they know it, they just don't reference it here, is Democrats understand the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here.
	They couldn't care less about they want Karl Rove and they want subpoenas primarily not because they know there's been a crime.
	They want subpoenas so that they can set a perjury trap for both Harriet Myers and Karl Rove, a la Patrick Fitzgerald in the Libby case or the plain leak case or what have you.
	I mean the way to look at this is what if Bush sent requests to Patrick Leahy, I want your staff come up here.
	I want to talk to your number one legislative aide on the Judiciary Committee.
	I want to find out just who you've been coordinating with to destroy the lives and careers of my judicial nominees.
	Can you imagine the hubbub?
	Can you imagine the anger that that old Senator DePenz would erupt with?
	That's the equivalent of what's happening here because there has been no crime.
	And as the Washington Post points out, ladies and gentlemen, no evidence that any of the firings obstructed a corruption investigation, particularly corruption investigations of Republicans.
	And the best evidence of that is look at Randy Duke Cunningham.
	That U.S. attorney was under the gun.
	Where's Cunningham?
	Convicted and in jail.
	The mystery creator of the Orwellian YouTube ad against Hillary Mrs. Bill Clinton is a Democrat operative who worked for a digital consulting firm with ties to Senator Barack Obama.
	Philip DeVelis, a strategerist with Blue State Digital, acknowledged in an interview with the AP that he was the creator of the video, which portrayed Mrs. Bill Clinton as a big brother figure and urged support for Obama's presidential campaign.
	DeVelis's 33 said he resigned from Blue State Digital on Wednesday after he learned that he was about to be unmasked by theHuffingtonPost.com, a liberal news and opinion internet site.
	Blue State Digital designed Obama's website, and one of the firm's founding members, Joe Rospars, took a leave from the company to work as Obama's director of new media.
	The connection to the campaign likely to be a setback for Obama.
	Why?
	Why in the world would this be a setback?
	It was a good ad.
	What in the world is a setback about this?
	I don't get the conventional wisdom on this.
	Likely to be a setback for Obama, who has cultivated an image as a politician who wants to rise above bare knuckle politics.
	It's true, yeah, it's me, DeVelis said Wednesday evening.
	It was a great ad.
	You know, these people are going to have to get real.
	Here's the bottom line: though, you mess with Mrs. Bill Clinton, and you watch out.
	This cost this guy his job.
	And if you read to the end of the story, remember the conclusion if you've read Orwell's 1984?
	The conclusion is this: it's not enough to obey Big Brother.
	You must love Big Brother.
	And the main character, after being tortured into turning on his true love, sat in the shop confessing his love for Big Brother.
	Let's go to the end of the story here from AP.
	This is where DeVellis, Philip DeVellis, is speaking.
	This blew up much, much more than I ever thought it would.
	I want to make it clear: I don't think Mrs. Bill Clinton is Big Brother or a bad person or anything.
	You've got to love Big Brother.
	You just can't obey.
	You have to love Big Brother, and you have to witness to this.
	So Philip DeVellis has now closed the loop and finished the circle here on his own ad because you mess with Mrs. Bill Clinton.
	Watch out.
	All right, now to the audio soundbites.
	CNN couldn't let go yesterday of the Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	What would we call it?
	It's not a feud.
	Schwarzenegger calling me irrelevant.
	And then hearing the way the media was treating it, called me yesterday afternoon.
	This is Tuesday afternoon.
	He asked to be on the program yesterday.
	Yeah, I caught a misunderstanding.
	We have no fight.
	We have no fight.
	He tells everybody in California.
	I understood what he said.
	There was no fight with me.
	In fact, the first words out of his mouth were, thanks for getting me off the hook.
	Now, a lot of people have said, by the way, Rush, you let him off the hook.
	He didn't apologize.
	I didn't expect him to.
	People like this don't apologize.
	The worst thing, you don't do that.
	Folk, you got to understand, this is the big leagues.
	He called here and said, thanks for getting me off the hook, meaning thanks for putting what I said in perspective because you understood what I meant.
	I wasn't calling you irrelevant in terms of being a powerful American media figure or anything like that.
	Just what anybody thinks of what I'm doing in California is irrelevant to me.
	I listened to myself.
	That's all he was saying.
	It was everybody else that regarded it as something personal.
	Well, I didn't expect him to apologize, and that's not what he said he was going to do.
	At any rate, CNN and Carol Costello, renowned because of us, Infobaven reporter, just couldn't let go of this.
	Wolf Blitzer, who we like here at the EIB network, this is, again, we've got one minute and 17 seconds.
	This is like we did yesterday.
	They promoed this feud, whatever they were calling it, all afternoon on Tuesday, leading up to Carol Costello's report.
	They did it again yesterday.
	We've got here a little montage of every promo that Wolf Blitzer aired on CNN yesterday afternoon.
	It's round two for Republican Icons.
	As Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh take their war of words to the airwaves, there are new developments unfolding in that very public war of words between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh.
	Did they call a truce?
	Up ahead, a possible truce in their very public feud.
	Arnold Schwarzenegger going on Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
	Round two between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh.
	Are they calling a ceasefire in their war of words?
	Rush hosted Arnold Schwarzenegger today on his radio show.
	We're going to update you on what emerged.
	Are Rush Limbaugh and Arnold Schwarzenegger ready to bury the hatchet?
	We're going to show you what happened today.
	New developments, by the way, in that very public war of words between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh.
	The California governor was a guest today on the program.
	Did they call a truce?
	That very public war of words between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh continues.
	Did they call a truce?
	Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Rush Limbaugh show.
	Are they calling a ceasefire in their war of words?
	And still ahead tonight, Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	New developments tonight in that very public war of words between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh.
	A day after the Terminator calls Rush Limbaugh irrelevant.
	Now Rush tells Arnold he's selling out.
	A minute and 17 seconds of this.
	We didn't repeat one thing there.
	That's how they promoted it yesterday afternoon, leading up to this report from Infobabe and reporter at Extraordinaire Carol Costello.
	And you'll hear an expert in this report, the University of Virginia's political science expert, Larry Sabato.
	It's a beautiful thing, Republican reaching out to conservative talk show guy.
	But instead of showing the love, the two showed the split in the Republican Party.
	Call it round two in the battle between Arnold and Rush.
	This time, gentle jabs were thrown on Limbaugh's radio show.
	You probably get a little flustered.
	Every time you go on these shows, they throw my name up at you.
	Was Hollywood movie star Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger flustered?
	Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant.
	It was a shot aimed at Limbaugh's loaded term for Schwarzenegger, a closet liberal.
	But if Schwarzenegger was flustered that first time, he isn't now.
	Some political observers say the conversation between these two very different Republicans is a beautiful metaphor for the state of the party.
	The Republicans are divided.
	They're polarized into two factions that can't agree even on the basics.
	And it's going to mean that it's much more difficult for Republicans to get elected to the presidency in 2008.
	By the time the conversation ended, both had promised to smoke a stogie together.
	But Limbaugh couldn't resist one last jab aimed at Schwarzenegger's famously Democratic wife.
	I also want to apologize to Governor Schwarzenegger.
	After this interview, I'm not sure Maria gets a word in edgewise in their house.
	And that is how the battle ends for now.
	It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
	You could look at it like this.
	This is the year of the pragmatic conservative.
	You want to win or do you want to be right?
	We invited Rush Limbaugh to join us.
	That would be excellent.
	I had so many invitations, I couldn't accept one without angering a bunch of others.
	So I took the usual route and politely declined them all.
	So you see how this is now being played in the drive-by.
	As Arnold is the new pragmatic Republican showing how to win, I show my people how to lose.
	Yet, they still want the irrelevant Rush Limbaugh on CNN.
	That would be excellent, said the Infobabe and anchorette reporter at.
	Well, she also does some anchoring, Carol Costello.
	Just for those of you, by the way, just joining us and watching on the Ditto Camp at RushLimbaugh.com, I'm holding here.
	Brian, grab the humidor real quick.
	I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a cigar sent to me by Governor Schwarzenegger.
	It arrived via overnight courier today, And it is one of his own personal cigars, complete with his own band.
	Just put it right there, Brian.
	Thanks a whole month.
	Appreciate that.
	A humidor in which this cigar came, I'm now holding up also in my hands, which contain my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
	And the top of the humidor has the seal of the governor of the state of California.
	And this is it right here.
	I have to have both hands on this, so I can't zoom in for you people.
	Let me open it up, and you will see that Governor Schwarzenegger has autographed it inside on the upper left-hand corner of the inside of this very, very nice humidor.
	And to read the inscription to you, it says, to Rush best wishes, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	So, truce, whatever you want to call it, there was never a contratemps.
	Meantime, a brief time out.
	We'll be back.
	We will continue right after this.
	We will get to your phone calls here in a jiffy, folks.
	But first, three soundbites here, two from John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards, and then one from Howard Feynman.
	Now, I made mention mere moments ago that the new website Politico has broken two scoops this week, both proving to be untrue.
	The first was that Alberto Gonzalez is going to quit and that the White House had asked Republicans out there to find potential replacements.
	The second one was just this morning that Edwards was going to suspend the campaign.
	And just the opposite happened.
	Now, I'm going to play these two bites, Edwards and John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards, to set up Howard Feynman, who commented on this later because it provides perhaps a little insight into what happened.
	Ben Smith is the blogger at the Politico who broke the story this morning and Edwards is going to suspend the campaign.
	He's got egg all over his face, and he's just put a post on his blog.
	Hey, look, I talked to a source really close to him, and the source said that they're going to suspend the campaign.
	And, you know, we responded.
	We were shocked by this.
	We apologize for this, but I trust this source.
	I'm not going to reveal the source's identity, but this source has never got anything like this wrong.
	So you'll hear Howard Feynman's bite, and it might give you some insight here into what went on.
	Here first is Senator Edwards himself responding to a question.
	What does this mean for your campaign?
	Are you going to suspend any activities, fundraising, travel?
	The campaign goes on.
	The campaign goes on strongly.
	Elizabeth and I have talked at length about this already, talked with our children about it.
	Basically, as I mentioned earlier, we've been confronted with these kind of traumas and struggles already in our life.
	And we know from our previous experience that when this happens, you have a choice.
	You can go cower in the corner and hide, or you can be tough and go out there and stand up for what you believe in.
	And both of us are committed to the cause.
	We're committed to changing this country that we love so much.
	And we have no intention of cowering in the corner.
	Now, this line that he uttered, both of us are committed to the cause.
	We're committed to changing this country that we love so much.
	I mentioned this earlier.
	I'll repeat it again for those of you that just joined us.
	Last night when this news broke, this press conference is going to happen today, but nobody knew details of just speculating.
	I sent instant messages to three different people and told Snerdley this morning an hour and a half before the program that he's not going to suspend a campaign.
	He's going to say that he and his wife, this campaign is going to go on for the country that we both love.
	And that exactly what he said.
	So I was not surprised.
	Well, there was a little part of me that was.
	Here now is Mrs. Edwards and her announcement.
	One of the reasons to do a press conference as opposed to a press release is that you can see, I mean, I don't look sickly.
	I don't feel sickly.
	And, you know, I'm as ready as any person can be for that.
	I mean, you know how grueling it is in general.
	There is a likelihood that some of the medications that I will be taking will sometimes make me tired.
	I have, as you all well know, and a lot of you know, actually know that my children, my younger children, six and eight-year-old, if I get tired, I actually expect they're going to be the reason as opposed to the medications that Dr. Kerry is going to be giving me.
	But there's a chance that both of them will make me tired sometimes, and so sometimes I'll step back to sort of regain my energy.
	Now, Howard, I played those two bites to set this up.
	This is Howard Feynman on PMS NBC after the announcement that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has returned, but that Senator Edwards will continue his presidential campaign.
	This is Howard Feynman to Chris Matthews.
	I think this is somewhat of a surprise.
	I think there were some websites here in Washington that were predicting that he would suspend or even drop out.
	That turned out not to be the case.
	This is an ongoing story, and this is a metaphor for how they want to fight for the country.
	They're willing to take the public relations risk of analogizing their own family situation and the bravery that they've shown and the guts that they've shown to the kind of leadership that they want to offer the country.
	That's pretty bold, but that's the world that we live in now, Chris, where people's personal lives are analogized to their political beings.
	And that's what we're seeing with the Edwardses.
	I thought that was looked at politically, diagnosed, if you will, politically.
	That was a 10-strike of a press conference.
	They showed guts.
	It was nothing short of remarkable and somewhat unexpected.
	And it's always great when something unexpected happens around here.
	Yes, it is great when something unexpected.
	It's fabulous when there's a surprise.
	Isn't it sort of boring when we find what, Mr. Snowdler?
	Of course I know how that sounds.
	Of course I know.
	It sounds slavish.
	It sounds absolutely slavish.
	But look, and he's right.
	There's been a mixture.
	People are sharing.
	In the old days, this announcement would not have been made public, and it certainly would have been tied to a campaign.
	It's a different era now.
	I'm telling you, this is to jumpstart the campaign.
	This is to see if it'll jumpstart the campaign.
	And we'll find out the next three or four days or whatever week if that happens.
	But this business about this being a surprise makes me think that the leak that was planted today was purposely wrong to create surprise, make sure everybody thought, oh, we know what's coming and then have it blown away.
	The campaign's going to, ooh, the campaign's going to go, oh, well, we thought it was going to be suspended.
	You know, we all get all these press releases in advance of the State of Union address.
	We all know what's going to be said before it airs.
	There's no surprise that this was a surprise.
	It may have been done on purpose.
	Gladly.
	Thanks for the chance to break it down for you, brother.
	Rush Limbaugh Making the Complex Understandable here on the EIB Network.
	You people watching on a DittoCam may have noticed that I have been wildly gesticulating through most of this program, but particularly the last five or six minutes during this break.
	The whole crew on the other side of the glass, apoplectic at a comment I just made before the break.
	And the comment about which they are apoplectic is when I responded to Howard Feynman.
	Howard Feynman talking about how everybody was expecting Edwards to announce his campaign is going to be suspended because of a report on the Politico website this morning that that was the case.
	And he went on to say this was a total surprise.
	It was 100% total surprise.
	And I reacting to that said, yeah, it was a total surprise.
	And I wouldn't be surprised if whoever the source is purposely leaked something not true to the politico in order to set up the surprise.
	Because Feynman's right.
	What good's watching a press conference when you know what's going to happen?
	Every time there's a press conference, there's something, be it a presidential press conference, State of the Union address, there's always the text of the speech or whatever before it goes out.
	Other than a news conference, which is ad-lib, you don't know what the questions are going to be, but we all know what's going to happen before it happens.
	This is the way public relations works.
	Then all of a sudden they set this up.
	This was a giant surprise.
	And everybody in Washington, Feynman was talking about it, everybody.
	CBS broke into programming at 11 o'clock when the political thing hit to announce that the Edwards campaign was going to be suspended.
	Now, everybody in Washington in the drive-by media circles is wondering how the hell this happened.
	Because it's so unusual when something leaks from a source close to the campaign about what's going to be in a press conference, that's generally what happens.
	Now, I have here the latest blog from Ben Smith at the Politico.
	I'm going to read it to you.
	It's called Getting It Wrong.
	A single confident source close to John Edwards told me this morning that Edwards was suspending his campaign and I posted it to the blog at 11.06.
	My source and I were wrong.
	The source, whose anonymity I agree to respect, spoke of the kind of grim prognosis Elizabeth Edwards herself just described, hearing before a second round of tests came back.
	I trusted the source, somebody I've known for several years, and who's always been reliable.
	And with less than an hour before Edwards was to announce, I unwisely wrote the item without getting a second source.
	When the campaign pushed back harder than I'd expected, I added that information to the original item, but didn't undo the damage.
	My apologies to our readers for passing on bad information.
	Is it not reasonable to think that perhaps the source purposely passed on something just to set up the surprise that Howard Feynman, Drive-By Media Extraordinaire, thinks is just jolly.
	Think this is great that something that we love surprises in these things.
	This is not a criticism.
	Look at this is PR.
	This is how you play the media.
	And people on the other side of the glass think, oh my, I can't believe it.
	The left-wing blogs are going to be all over this.
	Limbaugh said that the Edwards campaign lied to the politico.
	I didn't.
	You know, in public relations and politics, just what is a lie and what isn't?
	It's all a game.
	And I want to go back and I want you to listen to this Howard Feynman bit one more time.
	And I want to ask you, as you listen to this, if there's something about it, I refer to it as slavish, but is there something else about this that strikes you?
	Let me put this in context.
	This is Howard Feynman reacting to the news he's just learned in a press conference with John and Elizabeth Edwards that she has incurable cancer.
	It has spread to the bones.
	It is stage four.
	Life expectancy here, survival rate of five years, 20% survivable rate of five years.
	She's got cancer is treatable, but we've all just heard this press conference essentially saying that she's dying.
	And Edward's going to keep the campaign going.
	She's going to be part of it.
	See if there's anything that jumps out about not that there's not a secret sentence here that will give it away.
	There's not a single, I'm not asking you to listen for something specific.
	Just the whole bite and the concept and the tone of it is there's something here that sort of makes you curious, raises red flags or whatever.
	Here it is.
	I think this is somewhat of a surprise.
	I think there were some websites here in Washington that were predicting that he would suspend or even drop out.
	That turned out not to be the case.
	This is an ongoing story, and this is a metaphor for how they want to fight for the country.
	They're willing to take the public relations risk of analogizing their own family situation and the bravery that they've shown and the guts that they've shown to the kind of leadership that they want to offer the country.
	That's pretty bold, but that's the world that we live in now, Chris, where people's personal lives are analogized to their political beings.
	And that's what we're seeing with the Edwardses.
	I thought that was looked at politically, diagnosed, if you will, politically.
	That was a 10-strike of a press conference.
	They showed guts.
	It was nothing short of remarkable and somewhat unexpected.
	And it's always great when something unexpected happens around here.
	See, he's thrilled to beans, folks, that there was a surprise in a press conference.
	He's not upset the Politico got it wrong.
	He's kind of glad because it's a surprise, but that's not the point.
	He makes the comment here that that's just the way it is, Chris, in politics today.
	You know, people's personal lives are diagnosed politically and they're analogized politically.
	Howard, who does that?
	Who analogizes personal lives politically?
	Who is it that takes virtually every news story and tries to turn it into a political event and analyze it politically in terms of somebody's fortunes?
	And the answer to the question, of course, is none other than the drive-by media.
	So, how many of you would agree with me, and it would be wise if you were to do so, when I say that we've just heard, we've just heard John and Elizabeth Edwards announce that his campaign's continuing despite his wife's recurring cancer,
	incurable cancer, and that entire bite is an analysis of the political aptitude, strength, and brilliance of the press conference.
	That bite, Howard Feynman analyzed it totally politically.
	It's a 10-strike.
	Now, what if I were to do that?
	Let's take a hypothetical.
	Hypothetical.
	Let's pretend that I were to, after hearing the press conference, come on with some comment about, you know what, folks, this is purely political.
	This is just being done to set up this campaign.
	This is just trying to, they're just all they're trying to do.
	If I were to say this, they're just trying to jump-start a sagging campaign.
	They're hoping to evoke a bunch of sympathy.
	Do you know what hell would fly over this?
	I mean, nothing compared to the feud between me and the governator.
	But that's what Feynman just did, except he has a different political take than the hypothetical political take I just suggested.
	His political take, whoa, what a brilliant political move here.
	Now, frankly, I can't relate to this if I were married.
	If I were married and in a similar circumstance here as the Edwards, and my wife was diagnosed with incurable cancer, and I called a press conference, you know what?
	I've learned over the course of my life that life has a purpose.
	And my wife and I have decided I'm going to proceed with broadcast excellence.
	Do you think I would be praised for making a brilliant political or business decision?
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	But here, our buddy Howard Feynman has just rated the press conference on a political scale.
	That's something that struck me about this.
	And I just wanted to make that observation.
	Now to the phones, because people have been patiently waiting.
	We'll go to Riverside, California.
	And Jim, your first today.
	Is this the first call that we?
	No, it's the second call.
	It's the first call?
	First call?
	Well, we're breaking news out there.
	We have to deal with it.
	Jim, thanks for waiting.
	Hi.
	You were supposed to hardball Arnold.
	He has California skyrocketing downward to illegal alien hell.
	And you two end up being stogy smoking bugs.
	All this after Mr. Schreiber turns Callie into northern Mexico.
	And then you said he didn't let you get a word Englishwise.
	I've heard you talk to liberals, and you always managed to get a word in English.
	Why not with Arnold?
	Well, I actually did.
	He was on a jihad.
	I mean, there's no question he was on a jihad filibuster.
	And that's because he wanted to try to control the subject matter in the context of the interview.
	But I don't think you must have listened to the whole thing because he did get out of here scot-free.
	And I challenged him on a couple of things.
	But there will be other instances.
	There was a note included with the humidor, by the way, Jim.
	He wants to be on the show often, he said.
	Okay.
	Well, I'm sorry I let you down.
	You know, I'm sorry I let you down.
	I was, you know, I'm not a rude individual.
	I'm a gentleman.
	And I understood right off the bat that, well, very soon after the interview started, that this was a, you know, he was going to try to filibuster his way through this, just beat the clock, so to speak.
	What you don't know is that his office has said, look, five, seven minutes is all we got because we've got to go meet the police chief in Fresno.
	And we got, and he was here for 15.
	Now, if he had gone out of here in five to seven minutes, which is, you know, I would have basically had a chance to say hi, thanks, you would have then had an excuse, legitimate reason to be mad at me.
	Okay, well, thank you for your apology.
	And I'd appreciate it if Snerdley would quit dissing me when I call.
	And have a good day.
	How does he diss you when you call?
	I don't, this is the first I've heard of this.
	Well, he always.
	I mean, you're here on the air.
	You made it on the air, and you ripped me to shreds, and you've got to feel better about that.
	He said he was going to pass a lot of things on to you because he didn't think they were worthwhile getting to you.
	So I've called, I've talked to Snerdley 50 times in the past few months, and not once did he think anything I had to say worthwhile.
	Hearing this, I think Snerdley deserves a raise, frankly.
	But I'll talk to him about this, Jim, and I'll find out what he told him that he didn't pass on because that clearly is not nice, and it's mean.
	And plus, it's misleading to you when he says he's going to tell me things that he doesn't.
	And that's just unacceptable here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	Well, you're a very kind man.
	I appreciate that.
	You're in Riverside, and that means you're in Southern California, which is illegal aliens.
	Yeah, I know.
	You're more northern Mexico now than they are up in San Francisco and Sacramento.
	We got more gunshots out here at nighttime than an Iraq does.
	Well, Philadelphia.
	So does Philadelphia and some other cities.
	Yeah, but I feel for you.
	I didn't know that calling this program was such an arduous thing for you, having to go through the whatever Snirdley's putting it through.
	But I promise you, I am going to get to the bottom of it.
	Well, thank you very much, Rush.
	You are a gentleman.
	Thank you.
	Have a great day out there, Jim, and we'll talk to you next week.
	Back after this.
	Thanks for this.
	Welcome back.
	There we go, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
	Everybody's instant message flashing me all over the place here, telling me what trouble they think I'm going to get into next.
	It is the EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up back to California.
	This is Jeff.
	You're up, sir.
	Nice to have you with us.
	Rush Mega Dittos from Bakersfield.
	You are a hero to so many of us, and you are my definition of the word patriot.
	Thank you, sir.
	I appreciate you saying that.
	Just something John Edwards said really struck me the wrong way.
	And while I have extreme compassion for his wife going through cancer, my family went through cancer with a three-year-old kid, and it's everybody fights it their own way.
	However, to declare that you're just going to do what you want to do and perhaps suggesting people that don't do that are running and cowering in a corner, I think is that just really struck me the wrong way.
	Is that how you interpreted it, that he was assailing others who don't continue on with their lives as cowering in a corner?
	Well, boy, is that one just like I said, having been through it and lived at a hospital for six months and seen families battling it and seeing how it brings families together and everybody deals with it in their own way.
	But one thing you don't do is tell other people going through it, oh, you're doing it wrong.
	And if you do that, you're just going and cowering in a corner.
	They're being scared.
	I didn't think he was doing that.
	I think they were describing themselves.
	We're not going to cower in a corner.
	We're not going to run from this.
	I didn't get the impression he was commenting on the way any other family deals with this.
	Perhaps not, but still, and I'm not at all a politically correct person, but it's just that one just struck me the wrong way.
	And that was my comment.
	And also, you are so right on on the global warming hypocrisy.
	Keep it up, Rush.
	We love it.
	Well, we got it.
	Global warming stack, it just I'm convinced it's making love to itself because it just keeps growing.
	There is more and more stuff that is accumulating in the global warming stack each day.
	It's getting to the point we can do a whole show on it, and of course that would be overkill.
	But I appreciate that.
	Richard, in Raleigh, North Carolina, one and a half minutes.
	Can you do it?
	Sure, I can do it.
	This whole Senate-approved subpoenas here, it just smells to me of this whole scooter Libby fiasco all over again.
	You stole my thumbnail.
	You mentioned it in the last hour.
	But the first time I heard about this, it just, I said, oh, it's going to get to a point where it's not going to be about what they're saying anymore, and it's just going to be about the process now, and about somebody didn't recollect something correctly.
	And there's a purpose on that.
	This has happened.
	I mean, there's nothing unique about what's happening here.
	There's always been these constitutional battles between Senate and White House, Congress and the White House.
	They're all vying for power, and there have been presidents that have been despised and hated.
	And there have been Senate committees that have tried to subpoena witnesses, documents from the executive branch and so forth.
	None of this is new.
	The details here are what's important.
	The details are there.
	There's no crime here.
	There's no reason for subpoenas, and there's no reason for testimony.
	No crime.
	There was no prosecutor fired in order to curtail a corruption prosecution.
	This is, if any, it's just harassment.
	And this harassment happens a lot.
	And it's, like I said, and you agree with it, it's a perjury trap.
	They'd love to get Rolf and Harriet Myers up there under oath and try to keep them up there for days and get them telling lies.
	But that's why when you have these fights, the administration, they've drawn a line in the sand and they've got a hold to it now.
	Because they're starting to get support on this.
	They've got to hold to the fight now.
	If they cave to this, then they're going to damage themselves and the whole concept of executive privilege as well.
	Back in a sec.
	All right, got to go take a break.
	Get away from all these people thinking I'm in trouble again.
	I'm not in trouble.
	And even if I am, I'm not in trouble for anything legitimate.
	And I can defend it.
	I can take the heat.
	What the hell?
	You people out there need to relax.

▲